Newt Gingrich’s Secret Service is costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a day?

posted at 2:11 pm on April 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Newt Gingrich said he’d be in the presidential race until Tampa — and he’s showing every sign of keeping his word. For the most part, his presence in the race is innocent enough. Lingering supporters — who seem to have accepted that their candidate won’t win the nomination — report that they still like to listen to his speeches and, indeed, Gingrich continues to be a well-known spokesman for conservative solutions and a critic of the MSM and President Barack Obama.

But, in one respect, his presence in the race is literally costly. Gingrich’s Secret Service detail reportedly costs taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a day:

Gingrich reportedly requested Secret Service protection in February and was granted a detail in early March. In April 2008, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan told the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that it was then costing the agency roughly $38,000 a day to service each candidate receiving protection, which was then just Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

A source with knowledge of the inner workings of the Gingrich campaign told The Daily Caller that Gingrich recently had three people on his personal security detail, though sometimes there are “many more.”

“Others on the campaign told me that some of the Secret Service members were even saying it was a waste of time and that he shouldn’t have it,” the source told TheDC. “Staff members thought it was ridiculous too, and just another example of Newt’s arrogance and self-importance.”

The other non-presumptive-nominee still in the race — Ron Paul — has predictably rejected Secret Service protection as a kind of “welfare.” I’d expect nothing less from the nation’s most famous libertarian.

It could be that Gingrich could just give up the SS detail rather than his entire candidacy — but, personally, I don’t want Newt Gingrich to forego needed security protection. I’d rather him ask himself: Is my candidacy — and its attendant costs — truly justified? The solution to his waste of taxpayer dollars isn’t to abandon Secret Service protection: It’s to suspend his campaign.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Huckabee stayed in until the convention last time, even though he had no chance of winning. Gingrich can do the same. Mitt has to actually win the election, not get a default because his competitors have all dropped out.

Your party leader is all that needs to be said. My son was also a “libertarian” until last December when I simply asked him to google a few things. Half hour later he came back and apologized.

I have no idea how any Jew can even contemplate joining/belonging to philosophy/party that is lead and defined by Herr Doktor. Whether one actually joins it or not, party leadership matters. IMHO.

If you are “independent” then say so. Libertarian, as does SS, imply certain things.

riddick on April 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM

I don’t belong to a party. You really need to learn the difference between a lower-case “L” libertarian and an upper-case “L” Libertarian.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

When I see SS, I think Social Security and there is hardly a day that goes by when I am not at work writing, reading, interviewing or watching something that is unconnected with the Holocaust/Nazi Germany/modern-day anti-semitism, especially in Europe.

There’s a 99% chance — 99% — that Romney will be the nominee. Everybody, even Newt, knows that.

Newt says there is no advantage for him to drop out? What about the greater good?
…

I, who has been fiercely anti-Romney, say we need to be able to make a fuller consolidation now behind our essentially 100% certain nominee. Make a deal if you must, but exit while it still means something.

Newt’s campaign is broke, in the hole about $5 million and is bouncing checks.

JPeterman on April 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The bounced check had nothing to do with lack of donations. It was written on a closed account. SecServ protection is just the way its done, and a drop in the bucket compared to what the feds waste money on each day.

Geaux Newt, take it to the convention! Gingrich/Santorum 2012!

alwaysfiredup on April 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Summation: Vote for the candidate with most money. Hussein had more money for the campaign in 2008 and will also likely have more this year. Ergo, we need to vote for Hussein. Politics are only for those who can afford them.

Per Romney bots…

As I already pointed out above, this is getting worse by the day. Screw the laws on books. Screw those politicians who can’t afford to buy votes. Screw ethics. Screw well defined governing records. And Romney bots are wondering why their guy didn’t have the numbers in 2008 and most likely won’t in 2012?

Newt is not doing anything illegal that is not defined by laws. I want to know who started this BS and please don’t tell me that Romney camp had nothing to do with this.

we need to be able to make a fuller consolidation now behind our essentially 100% certain nominee.

anotherJoe on April 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Tell that to your “99%-certain” nominee. It’s his obligation to secure his base, for which he has shown no inclination or aptitude.

alwaysfiredup on April 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM

You got that right, alwaysfiredup. The establishment repubs and Romney ‘hate’ the conservative base of the party, are embarrased by them and the tea party, and wish they would all just go away. Looks like their wish just might come true. RIP repub party.

Newt’s campaign is broke, in the hole about $5 million and is bouncing checks.

JPeterman on April 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The bounced check had nothing to do with lack of donations. It was written on a closed account. SecServ protection is just the way its done, and a drop in the bucket compared to what the feds waste money on each day.

Geaux Newt, take it to the convention! Gingrich/Santorum 2012!

alwaysfiredup on April 19, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Summation: Vote for the candidate with most money. Hussein had more money for the campaign in 2008 and will also likely have more this year. Ergo, we need to vote for Hussein. Politics are only for those who can afford them.

Per Romney bots…

As I already pointed out above, this is getting worse by the day. Screw the laws on books. Screw those politicians who can’t afford to buy votes. Screw ethics. Screw well defined governing records. And Romney bots are wondering why their guy didn’t have the numbers in 2008 and most likely won’t in 2012?

Newt is not doing anything illegal that is not defined by laws. I want to know who started this BS and please don’t tell me that Romney camp had nothing to do with this.

This has nothing to do with the laws we have that clearly spell out who can get Secret Service protection and who can’t.

And, please, people, stop using SS in your posts. I know most of you are not Jews, but for the rest of us SS means something very specific. PLEASE.

riddick on April 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM

And he qualifies and if there were specific threats then I’d much rather Secret Service than a politician be assassinated. As regards other politicians, the FBI would provide protection if there is a threat.

Ok then, you win on that. I was guess-tamating what I thought was a generally accepted approximation, and at some point we have to abandon what at some point becomes a fanciful desire for another nominee with the point of trying to get all our guns on the target of Obama. !!!! Please. Again, I was fiercely anti-Romney, being for “Trump’s willing to say what’s not PC!,” Perry, Cain, Newt, Perry again, (briefly Romney as Perry quit…), Newt again, Santorum.

What’s at stake. A leftist Supreme Court for a generation… rubber stamping leveling wealth taxes (% of assets & $ like in Monopoly) etc. Obamacare. S.Court Justice E Holder! The unrestrained destruction of our military and any hopes of missile shield when we’ll probably need it. On and on.

When do we say WE will get on board to try to get the base excited, so O can be defeated. When do we grow up, when do we say that it is we, as the conservative blogger base of the base [even commenters here are very important], that we need to take a leading role in helping Romney excite the base. When, I implore, when? Romney is trying. But we need to help. All the onus is not on him. The burden is on us too.

No, he is not. At all. He has never made an overture of significance to the “base”. He (foolishly) takes us for granted. He promises to raise taxes, to make sure the top earners are paying their fair share. What’s the difference between that attitude and Obama? If he wins, we are going to be under huge pressure to go along with all the anti-conservative things he does, just like we’re under huge pressure to fall in line now. Whereas if he loses, we get to have 4 ears of investigations of the Obama admin and a good line on a 2/3 house majority in 2014. I know what future is better for Romney, and I know what future is better for conservatism. They aren’t the same.

I have to say, it is predictable but irritating to watch the Perry people roll over for Mitt so easily. Y’all refused to compromise on an ABR candidate, insisting your guy could pull it off, but he couldn’t, and now ABR doesn’t mean as much to you.

Have the courage of your convictions already. NC, TX, PA, DE and others are still to have their say.

Given his record so far, what makes you think that Romney won’t appoint a liberal judge (or at least try to)? And taxes wise, what was his record on taxes in MA, please remind us? Again, dont start with an excuse, its getting old by now.

Do you guys EVER pay attention to Romney’s record?
.
.
.
.
In regard to the manufactured Newt’s Secret Service scandal, can one of you “educated intelligentsia” tell us what happens to those in Newt’s detail when he, say, agrees they are no longer required? Do you really think they will be simply laid off and their salaries taken off the books? They are already paid for last time I checked, and taken from the pool of roughly 2000 agents that is kept at all times. Newt’s flying in chartered planes to events, so the cost of flying these guys with him is not there. Food? Maybe an occasional night in a hotel? Does anyone sane believe that costs $38K per day?

Just another manufactured scandal by the Romney camp. When will you people learn?

Start thinking for yourself and prove you are “educated intelligentsia”.

Well, I was Palin then Gingrich. That’s it. Because I know a guy/gal who can run a long race when I see one. Even now, he’s not giving up. I like that tenacity. I share it. It’s what we need.

alwaysfiredup on April 19, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Off argument, in agreeement really. I’ve always liked Palin best, with her Reagonesque ability to impart the simple conservative message. But sometimes she’s eloquent enough, sometimes not, it seems, and I agree pretty much with those who questioned her electability, but I probably would have been for her had she ran. Now it’s moot. And Perry would have been it, with his “take a wrecking ball to excess govt” anti-PC message, but it took me a long time to get over his senior moments & inability to defend himself on immigration, and then he inexplicably dropped out. In principle we generally agreed on Perry’s ideology (exclude immigration question), not Newt, as many conservatives called him progressive, like Beck (many disagreed of course).
Now there’s a 99%, or ok 90%, ok … a super high chance … that this is over now. Listen to what Mitt was saying about eliminating depts of the govt a few days ago. No link, but findable. Sounding almost like Perry, when I would think he would be trying instead to etch a sketch it to the center. That’s what gave me the sense that he’s trying. And go over speeches in full. Is he that bad? No, there’s a lot of good when you start to think about it, esp. in relation to the nightmare of another Obama term. Which for all we know would be the last election. Who knows.

And go over speeches in full. Is he that bad? No, there’s a lot of good when you start to think about it, esp. in relation to the nightmare of another Obama term. Which for all we know would be the last election. Who knows.

anotherJoe on April 19, 2012 at 6:32 PM

He said that before morning coffee? Or after dinner? He has changed his views with the slightest wind. Don’t LISTEN to what he says, look at his RECORD so far. And it ain’t good, far from it. So is it “Do as I say” or “Do as I do”? I simply can’t believe that a self admitted progressive liberal at his age just woke one a 4 years ago and said, You know what, I am a conservative now. Habits are tough to break in young people, at his age they are impossible to break.

He didn’t say he will eliminate depts, he said he will cut them in size or combine them. (Or leave them as is. Or grow them and add even more.) Whatever the flavor of the day will be then and the mood he wakes up in… Or maybe he’ll wake up one day and say, “I am back to my normal self again, progressive liberal. Yeah, that the ticket…”

We’re not at the stage when gambling on someone’s say so is a good thing. Not when we have much better qualified people to lead us and time to select one.

What a waste of money. Tens of thousands of dollars could be used to hire hundreds of Columbian hookers.

That means jobs. Jobs at good wages. Filling a demonstrated need. Think of the other jobs that would create. Jobs for Pimps, lingerie merchants, condom makers, pimpmobile detailers, and towel boys. Jobs you can tell your children about. (When they’re old enough)

Contrast how many times you have been asked, “Where can I find a Columbian hooker at a reasonable price” with the number of times you have asked for SS protection for Newt.